Biomechanical Comparison of Suture-Relay All-Suture Anchors and Conventional Suture Anchors for Posterior Medial Meniscus Root Repair in Porcine Models
| dc.contributor.author | Saengpetch N. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Prasitmeeboon N. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Janyawongchot T. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Aroonjarattham P. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Somtua C. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Thamyongkit S. | |
| dc.contributor.correspondence | Saengpetch N. | |
| dc.contributor.other | Mahidol University | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-10-31T18:34:07Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-10-31T18:34:07Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2024-10-01 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: Posterior medial meniscus root (PMMR) tears (PMMRTs) can be repaired using various techniques to promote healing. However, the biomechanical properties of suture-relay all-suture anchor (ASA) versus conventional suture anchor (CSA) and loop-locking transtibial pullout (TTP) have not been well established. Purpose: To compare the biomechanical properties of PMMR repairs using suture-relay ASA, CSA, and loop-locking TTP. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 33 fresh-frozen porcine knee joints with intact medial menisci were randomly divided into 3 groups, with 11 specimens in each group: ASA, CSA, and TTP. The study involved cyclic loading, with displacement measurements taken after 100, 500, and 1000 cycles. Subsequently, the specimens were loaded until clinical failure (defined as 3-mm displacement) and then to ultimate failure of the construct, with data recorded for displacement after cyclic loading, load to 3-mm displacement, and ultimate load to failure. Results: After 1000 cyclic loadings, the suture-relay ASA group showed considerably less displacement than the loop-locking TTP group (1.8 ± 0.7 mm vs 2.9 ± 0.3 mm; P <.001), but the displacements did not differ considerably between the suture-relay ASA and CSA groups (2.2 ± 0.9 mm; P >.05). The mean loads to clinical failure were significantly greater in the suture-relay ASA and CSA groups (61.3 ± 6.5 and 57.5 ± 9.7 N, respectively) than in the loop-locking TTP group (38.3 ± 9.4 N; P <.05). The ultimate load to failure was significantly greater in the suture-relay ASA group than in the loop-locking TTP group (153 ± 55.1 N vs 102 ± 12.9 N; P <.05). All specimens in the loop-locking TTP group failed by suture elongation mode, whereas only 2 specimens (18%) in the suture-relay ASA group and 5 specimens (45%) in the CSA group failed by suture elongation. Nine specimens (82%) in the suture-relay ASA group and 6 specimens (55%) in the CSA group failed due to suture cutout through the meniscal tissue. Conclusion: The biomechanical properties after PMMR repair did not statistically differ between the suture-relay ASA and CSA groups. The suture-relay ASA technique had a higher load to failure than the loop-locking TTP technique. Clinical Relevance: The suture-relay ASA technique is a promising option for the repair of PMMRTs; its repairing strength is also comparable to that of the CSA technique. Notably, the suture-relay ASA technique can be utilized without establishing a posteromedial portal, resulting in decreased procedure time and mitigating challenges associated with working from the posterior aspect of the knee. | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Vol.12 No.10 (2024) | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1177/23259671241279847 | |
| dc.identifier.eissn | 23259671 | |
| dc.identifier.scopus | 2-s2.0-85207187711 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/101838 | |
| dc.rights.holder | SCOPUS | |
| dc.subject | Medicine | |
| dc.title | Biomechanical Comparison of Suture-Relay All-Suture Anchors and Conventional Suture Anchors for Posterior Medial Meniscus Root Repair in Porcine Models | |
| dc.type | Article | |
| mu.datasource.scopus | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85207187711&origin=inward | |
| oaire.citation.issue | 10 | |
| oaire.citation.title | Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine | |
| oaire.citation.volume | 12 | |
| oairecerif.author.affiliation | Rangsit University | |
| oairecerif.author.affiliation | Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University | |
| oairecerif.author.affiliation | Mahidol University |
